A stark choice on defense spending

In his latest “major” speech on foreign policy, Mitt Romney argued yesterday he’ll push NATO allies, many of which are already pursuing austerity measures, to significantly boost their own defense spending. How would a Romney administration do this? Apparently, the Republican has a lot of faith in his persuasive abilities.

But here at home, Romney is even more ambitious. As President Obama twice noted in last week’s debate, the former governor is seeking “$2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for.” That’s on top of the additional spending Romney has planned for entitlements, and the trillions in tax cuts the Republican demands.

See that green line? That’s what the nation would spend on defense if Obama is re-elected. See the yellow line? That’s Romney’s proposed Pentagon spending.

As Rachel put it, “People say there’s no real difference between the candidates? Holy mackerel! When you’re talking about the biggest pile of money in the whole world, the largest amount of discretionary money spent on anything by our government – boy, howdy, is there a difference here. Boy, howdy, does this election matter.”

Incidentally, how does Romney intend to pay for all of this additional defense spending? He refuses to tell anyone – the GOP candidate expects to get elected first, then he’ll let Americans in on the details of his plans – though Big Bird is apparently in big trouble.

For the record, PBS gets about $400 million a year from Congress. Romney intends to spend an additional $2 trillion on the Pentagon – on top of the money already being spent on defense.

As for why the United States, which already spends more on our military than most of the major powers combined spend on their militaries, needs to increase defense spending by such an enormous amount, Romney hasn’t exactly explained that, either. Apparently, Americans would be in for quite an education in early 2013.